How deferring to Women because of their sex is bad.

[Lord Dane]

I will not say they are incapable of service because situations arise where you must be innovative & use ingenuity over physical means to get a job done.

By use of innovation and ingenuity over physical means, it reinforces the differences between physical strength and limitations thereof. It does not mean they can't accomplish the same goal; it means they do it a different way when physical strength is insufficient. That they are able to kill someone by something besides brute strength does not give them the same physical strength as a man; it gives them the potential to accomplish the same goal, through different means. Equality, but through differences.

There's probably a grey line for most people on hitting or not hitting a woman. There's only 3 situations I can think of where I would : (1) if I'm in mortal danger from one, (2) if we're bouting / sparring and it's acceptable, or (3) if it's reflexive. A long time ago I almost punched my wife (then girlfriend) in the face when she jumped out from behind a door and scared me - I dropped into stance and snapped back but luckily stopped when I realized it was her. You know, It's tough to turn off the ninja mode.

Oh, and Joan of Arc.

Points taken, Sir James & Ian. You are both correct in your insights into the obvious. I may have gotten off track in my perceptions.

[Lord Dane]

Lord Dane, we are not saying in the least that a woman cannot accomplish something. All we're saying is that women have less muscle mass. This is literally all it comes down to. If literally every single consideration were the same besides gender in two people, the male would possess more muscle mass.

We're not saying that a woman trained in combat couldn't prove effective, or that a woman couldn't harm us, ever. All we're saying is that women lack the luxury of naturally developing large quantities of muscle, and would in fact have to use ingenuity and skill where a unskilled man might be able to "power through" a physical challenge. The fact that a woman needs to do this is overcoming a limitation. Thus, you must then logically conclude that the woman started on an uneven playing field.

Agreed. I apologize for getting off-track. Most women do fit that perspective.

[Lord Dane]

Some women like and appreciate that deference...take my wife, for instance.  She's old-fashioned, likes that I hold the door or grab the chair for her, pick up the check, do the man chores around the house- all things she is perfectly able to do for herself  but likes the attention and the feeling of being made much of.

I don't care how equal they are to us, as Ian said there are certain limitations due to the nature of their bodies and nothing else- and his Olympic examples bear up that argument. 

I was raised to know that you didn't hit women under most circumstances, even in some self defense scenarios when its just hands involved.  I mean really, unless they're trained and are trying really, really hard they can't hurt you unless you let them.

Say that to a woman I have trained Sir William, and you will think differently. But yes, point taken otherwise.

What, the part about being treated with deference out of respect?  Or the part about them not really being able to hurt you unless they were trained and they were really trying to?  In any case, it isn't something I'd be ashamed of saying as it isn't a disparagement, just my experience.  I get what you're saying but I do not think the majority of women the world over are being trained as you are training your recruits.

With that said, a kick in the nuts would invalidate the argument I've just made, but again, that's not something I worry about- and most of the women I've had the pain/pleasure of knowing wouldn't resort to that as an opening salvo.  God help the man stuck with one who does.

You are correct, Sir William. Most women don't fit that expectation. Although they have the potential. I hate to short-sight someone's abilities when muscle mass is something they can build to even match a man's potential but it is limited ... by natural progression or just sheer nature I suppose is true. 

[Lord Dane]

Does the notion of Romantic Chivalry put its practitioner at odds with the notion of gender equality?

No, but I rarely engage in that as I simply don't experience many of those kinds of feelings necessary for engaging in Romantic Chivalry. I can do romance, I can do chivalry, but I have a really hard time with the combo as seen in the high & late middle ages. Though this may also have to do with not being attracted to the wilting flowery waif type of woman. I'm more into the Gina Carano & Zoe Washbourne kind of woman.

Truthfully though I don't see Male & Female. I see Human ( I open doors for all folks). Thusly, for example, a woman who is willing to fight me is willing to be fought by me. I am unable to show her less honor.

-----------
I give you a corollary as a thought exercise:

A smaller person, after finding out my religion, calls me a "F**king Kike". In response I slap said person hard. They reply with a punch to my nose. I leave and whine how I was assaulted for being Jewish. What's you opinion then? Of me? Of the situation?

Interesting thoughts. Here's mine of that example. Be the bigger/better man (or person) & not respond with violence to 'fighting words' alone as slapping is what gets my attention & the insults make that person look stupid & biggoted. Say what you will but if the woman takes 'physical action' in support of those expressed feelings towards you, then respond in kind as justifiable reaction (i.e. self-defense) in any reasonable manner.   

However, if I were speaking as a cop, I would arrest you 'both for stupidity' (and apply the appropriate charges based on circumstances). I have zero tolerance for stupidity, fighting, and other forms of idiocy in situations where these things are avoidable by being adults and decent human beings. And I absolutely hate whiners. LOL

On a personal note Thorsteinn, I am married but I'm for the Amy Adams or Kate Beckinsdale type of woman.

[Sir Edward]

Wow, I turn my back, and suddenly there's a long, interesting conversation going on.

Gender equality is, I think, something that has to be viewed in the right context. In terms of legal rights, privileges, and protections, and overall morality, respect, and treatment, everyone should be treated the same, regardless of gender.

But as others have pointed out, there are physical differences, as well as neurological differences. Men are predisposed toward more upper-body strength, and tend to be better at 3D spatial relationships and abstract concepts (in terms of evolution, all of these equate to better hunters). Women tend to be better at reading faces and body language, are better swimmers, and have a much more acute sense of smell.

But all of these things tend to follow a bell-curve distribution, where the male and female bell-curves mostly overlap. The averages are offset, but within the curves, probably 90% of the population fall into the same ranges regardless of gender.

But I think the main point of the thread is how to treat the opposite gender. The assumption that women are automatically "weak" is not a good assumption to make. However, all human beings are deserving of respect, until they do something to no longer deserve it.

I will never strike a woman out of anger, or domination. But if one were to attack me, I would defend myself accordingly.

[Ian]

But I think the main point of the thread is how to treat the opposite gender. The assumption that women are automatically "weak" is not a good assumption to make. However, all human beings are deserving of respect, until they do something to no longer deserve it.

I will never strike a woman out of anger, or domination. But if one were to attack me, I would defend myself accordingly.

Well said.

[SirNathanQ]

Very good post Sir Ed. While there are differences, we should treat women with the utmost respect. An act of courtesy isn't saying "You are too weak to do this", but "I respect you"

Even in a self defense situation, personally I'd personally rather not use a direct strike on a woman. 

[Sir William]

Nathan, under normal circumstances, that is as it should be.  If she's armed, however, you must do whatever it takes to ensure you survive the encounter.  Hopefully so that she will, too, but you first.

[Lord Dane]

Wow, I turn my back, and suddenly there's a long, interesting conversation going on.

Gender equality is, I think, something that has to be viewed in the right context. In terms of legal rights, privileges, and protections, and overall morality, respect, and treatment, everyone should be treated the same, regardless of gender.

But as others have pointed out, there are physical differences, as well as neurological differences. Men are predisposed toward more upper-body strength, and tend to be better at 3D spatial relationships and abstract concepts (in terms of evolution, all of these equate to better hunters). Women tend to be better at reading faces and body language, are better swimmers, and have a much more acute sense of smell.

But all of these things tend to follow a bell-curve distribution, where the male and female bell-curves mostly overlap. The averages are offset, but within the curves, probably 90% of the population fall into the same ranges regardless of gender.

But I think the main point of the thread is how to treat the opposite gender. The assumption that women are automatically "weak" is not a good assumption to make. However, all human beings are deserving of respect, until they do something to no longer deserve it.

I will never strike a woman out of anger, or domination. But if one were to attack me, I would defend myself accordingly.

Sir Edward, I am shocked. You forgot biological differences.  LOL

[Sir William]

And naturally, you don't strike a women just because her sex is bad.  That was the first thought I had when I read the title initially- then re-read it and realized what it actually meant.  I say it now because its funny.

[Lord Dane]

And naturally, you don't strike a women just because her sex is bad.  That was the first thought I had when I read the title initially- then re-read it and realized what it actually meant.  I say it now because its funny.

Actually Sir William ... I would think you would thank her if her sex is good.  LOL 

[SirNathanQ]

Nathan, under normal circumstances, that is as it should be.  If she's armed, however, you must do whatever it takes to ensure you survive the encounter.  Hopefully so that she will, too, but you first.

Sir William, I refer not to being passive. There are many ways to disarm and disable someone that don't involve a single strike being thrown. If I fought someone armed, male or female, I would concentrate more on neutralizing the weapon than striking. 

[Sir Edward]

Sir Edward, I am shocked. You forgot biological differences.  LOL

Well uhm, I figured that part would be well understood.

[Sir William]

And naturally, you don't strike a women just because her sex is bad.  That was the first thought I had when I read the title initially- then re-read it and realized what it actually meant.  I say it now because its funny.

Actually Sir William ... I would think you would thank her if her sex is good.  LOL 

This is true of course...but do you say nothing if it isn't?  Or is there any such thing as 'bad' as far as us guys go?  Probably a conversation a bit too risque for open consumption. 

Sir Nathan, understood...I was thinking more along the lines of neutralizing the threat...that is, the weapon and the assailant.

[Lord Dane]

Nathan, under normal circumstances, that is as it should be.  If she's armed, however, you must do whatever it takes to ensure you survive the encounter.  Hopefully so that she will, too, but you first.

Sir William, I refer not to being passive. There are many ways to disarm and disable someone that don't involve a single strike being thrown. If I fought someone armed, male or female, I would concentrate more on neutralizing the weapon than striking.

Smarter tactics would be to neutralize the person, Sir Nathan. The weapon is one threat only harmful when held by the aggressor still bent on harming you. Striking is one aspect of fighting, as is restraint & locking techniques to immobilize an opponent til they become passive enough to stop the aggression. But situation dictates.